Votehttp://www.desmogblog.com/taxonomy/term/6654/all
enThe Real Winner Of US Election – Dirty Energy Moneyhttp://www.desmogblog.com/2012/11/07/real-winner-us-election-dirty-energy-money
<div class="field field-name-field-bimage field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/styles/blog_teaser/public/blogimages/oil-money.jpg?itok=pb0ETUsB" width="200" height="150" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>As Democrats crawl out from their election night hangovers, still riding the high of President Barack Obama’s re-election victory, it appears that a reality check is due. Obama might have won the election, but the battle was won by the dirty energy industry.</p>
<p>Sure, the industry went all-in on Republican nominee Mitt Romney, <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.php?ind=E01&amp;cycle=2012&amp;recipdetail=P&amp;mem=N&amp;sortorder=U">showering him with almost $5 million</a>, compared to a <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.php?ind=E01&amp;cycle=2012&amp;recipdetail=P&amp;mem=N&amp;sortorder=U">paltry $705,000</a> to Obama in 2012. But the industry knew better than to put all of their eggs in one basket, and they received a massive return on their investment in the down ballot races, particularly those for the <span class="caps">U.S.</span> House of Representatives.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.php?ind=E01&amp;cycle=2012&amp;recipdetail=H&amp;mem=N&amp;sortorder=U">According to OpenSecrets.org</a>, the top 20 House candidates who received money from the dirty energy industry were all members of the Republican Party. Together, these 20 Republican candidates <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.php?ind=E01&amp;cycle=2012&amp;recipdetail=H&amp;mem=N&amp;sortorder=U">received more than $3.6 million</a> from the industry.</p>
<p>Here are the top recipients of dirty energy largesse (all money sources via <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.php?ind=E01&amp;cycle=2012&amp;recipdetail=H&amp;mem=N&amp;sortorder=U">OpenSecrets</a>, election results <a href="http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/2012/results/house">via Huffington Post</a>), along with the results of their respective elections:</p>
<!--break-->
<p>John Boehner, Republican Speaker of the House: Top recipient among Congressional candidates of dirty energy money, with $361,299. Won his re-election bid by running un-opposed.</p>
<p>Roger Williams, Republican from Texas: $282,408 from industry, won election with 58% of the votes.</p>
<p>Mike Pompeo, Republican from Kansas: $237,750 from industry, won re-election with 62.5% of the votes.</p>
<p>Kevin McCarthy, Republican from California. $224,200 from industry, won re-election with 73.8% of the votes.</p>
<p>Eric Cantor, Republican from Virginia: $218,250 from industry, won with 58.6% of the vote.</p>
<p>Dave Camp, Republican from Michigan: $207,000 from industry, won with 63% of the votes.</p>
<p>Bill Flores, Republican from Texas: $183,256 from industry, won with 79.9% of the votes.</p>
<p>John Fleming, Republican from Louisiana: $177,900 from industry, won with 75.3% of the votes.</p>
<p>Steve Pearce, Republican from New Mexico: $171,350 from industry, won with 59.1% of the votes.</p>
<p>John Sullivan, Republican from Oklahoma: $167,050 from industry, defeated by Republican Jim Bridenstine in the primaries. (Bridenstine won election with 63.5% of the votes.)</p>
<p>Cory Gardener, Republican from Colorado: $162,300 from industry, won with 58.6% of the vote, with 87% of precincts reporting.</p>
<p>Michael Williams, Republican from Texas: $149,100 from industry, lost in the primaries for a seat that still went Republican in the general election.</p>
<p>Fred Upton, Republican from Michigan: $144,300 from industry, won with 55% of the votes.</p>
<p>Francisco Canseco, Republican from Texas: $142,701 from industry, lost to Democrat Pete Gallego with only 45% of the vote.</p>
<p>Mike Coffman, Republican from Colorado: $132,250 from industry, narrowly won his election with under 50% of the vote.</p>
<p>Mike Conaway, Republican from Texas: $131,050 from industry, won with more than 78% of the votes.</p>
<p>Jeb Hensarling, Republican from Texas: $131,050 from industry, won with 64.4% of the votes.</p>
<p>Joe Barton, Republican from Texas: $130,650 from industry, won with 58% of the votes.</p>
<p>Charles Boustany, Republican from Louisiana: $129,550 from industry, won with 44.7% of the votes.</p>
<p>Pete Olson, Republican from Texas: $129,400 from industry, won with 64.1% of the votes.</p>
<p>Out of these twenty investments, there was only one real loss to speak of, and that was Francisco Canseco in Texas, where the seat switched parties. But 19 out of 20 is still a major win for the dirty energy industry.</p>
<p>What’s interesting to note here is that the top recipient of dirty energy money, John Boehner, was running unopposed, so he didn’t necessarily need the money to fight an electoral battle. Instead, that money buys his loyalty, and that is exactly what the industry is counting on in the next Congressional cycle.</p>
<p>Big money, especially from the dirty energy industry, was defeated (for the most part) in the presidential election, but they scored enormous wins in other races. As a result of their Congressional victories, and even the money they threw to President Obama, it is likely that we’ll witness <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/what-expect-when-you-re-electing-president-barack-obama">another four years of either inaction</a> on climate change and environmental issues, or a backslide. </p>
<p>The dirty energy industry won, and Americans lost. Sadly, that scenario hasn’t changed in more than a decade.</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5445">election</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/6360">2012</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/10906">Dirty Energy Industry</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/6079">Money</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5756">Campaign</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/10907">Loyalty</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/10908">Bribery</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/4170">John Boehner</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5665">Fred Upton</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1520">Barack Obama</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/8021">Finance</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/2247">lobbying</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/3632">lobbyist</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/2257">mitt romney</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/6654">Vote</a></div></div></div>Wed, 07 Nov 2012 18:53:32 +0000Farron Cousins6640 at http://www.desmogblog.comWhat To Expect When You’re Electing: Part 1 – What’s At Stakehttp://www.desmogblog.com/what-expect-when-you-re-electing-part-1-what-s-stake
<div class="field field-name-field-bimage field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/styles/blog_teaser/public/blogimages/vote-smart-button.jpg?itok=lI8M-XxW" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>Environmental and energy issues became one of the central issues of the 2008 <span class="caps">U.S.</span> presidential election. While the economy itself took center stage, energy issues were right behind it, being pushed by the insufferable chant of “Drill baby drill.” In the four years that have followed, the <span class="caps">U.S.</span> has seen a boom in hydraulic fracturing (fracking), the worst oil spill in our history, skyrocketing (and then plummeting) gas prices, a disastrous oil pipeline plan that threatens the safety of our aquifers, and a Republican-led assault on environmental safety standards.<br /><br />
With all of these issues weighing heavily in the mind of the American public, there’s no doubt that both energy policy and environmental concerns will once again play an important role in the 2012 election cycle.<br /><br />
To help educate those voters concerned about the environmental policies and histories of the 2012 candidates, we’re putting together a multi-part series “What to Expect When You’re Electing,” and we will discuss the statements, policies, positions, and industry money received by both major presidential candidates, as well as those seeking lower offices.</p>
<!--break-->
<p><br />
While the highest office in the land is up for grabs this year, the real victories for the environment might actually come from Senate and House races. In the last four years, many of the major victories and setbacks for the environment have come from Congress, and electing a pro-environment representative body might actually have more impact on the issues than the Commander in Chief.<br /><br />
And it’s not hard to see why. Here’s a quick overview of what has been happening in Washington, and how these issues might play out in the upcoming election:<br /><br />
Just last week, Republicans in the House of Representatives have <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/06/21/504120/republicans-jobs-hostage-keystone/">held a Transportation Bill hostage</a> – a bill that would put as many as 2.9 million Americans back to work. The bill is being held hostage until Congressional Democrats agree to include approval for the Keystone <span class="caps">XL</span> Pipeline in the House version of the bill, even though the Senate version (which was Keystone-free) passed with broad bipartisan support. If the bill is not approved before June 30<sup>th</sup>, as many as 1.9 million workers would temporarily lose their jobs until transportation program funding is restored.<br /><br />
On issues such as the <span class="caps">EPA</span> and oil exploration, House Republicans have again been at the forefront of these issues. <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/house-republicans-go-all-dirty-energy-industry-bonanza-legislation">Two weeks ago, we reported</a> on a legislative package being put forth by <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/gop-house-energy-action-team-dirty-energy-dream-team">industry-funded Republicans</a> in the House that would gut the <span class="caps">EPA</span>’s ability to enforce air pollution standards, while at the same time open up previously off-limits federal lands to oil drilling and general exploitation by the energy industry. <a href="http://www.uschamber.com/press/releases/2012/june/us-chamber%E2%80%99s-energy-institute-applauds-house-approval-energy-production-bil">The legislative package has been lauded</a> by groups like the <span class="caps">U.S.</span> Chamber of Commerce and the American Petroleum Institute.<br /><br />
The <span class="caps">EPA</span> has been under attack for quite a long time, and many candidates in recent years have actually campaigned under an “abolish the <span class="caps">EPA</span>” mantle. <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/gingrich-calls-epa-job-killing-regulatory-engine-higher-energy-prices">Earlier this year</a>, Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich referred to the <span class="caps">EPA</span> as “a job-killing regulatory engine of higher energy prices.” He also told reporters that if he were ever elected president, the entire agency would be abolished. <a href="http://desmogblog.com/top-republican-wants-weaken-epa-fast-track-environmental-destruction">Republican congressman Ed Whitfield has also stated</a> that his goal is to weaken the <span class="caps">EPA</span> to the point where the agency has absolutely no power left to regulate industry.<br /><br />
The issues discussed here are important to this election cycle because <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/dirty-energy-industry-sues-epa-over-clean-air-initiatives">every one of them</a> can be <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/will-dismal-jobs-report-give-new-life-keystone-xl-plan">traced back to a broader issue</a>: Jobs.<br /><br />
America is still suffering from a very weak employment situation, and any issue that can be framed as an “anti-jobs” or “anti-worker” issue resonates very well with the public. And even though the employment gains from utilizing the <span class="caps">EPA</span> to its fullest capacity far outweigh the employment gains from destroying it, some Republicans in Washington are still pushing the tired, <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/media-helps-sell-myth-job-killing-regulations">untrue talking points</a> about <a href="http://desmogblog.com/death-talking-point-regulations-actually-create-jobs">regulations destroying jobs</a>.<br /><br />
And that’s what is at stake in this year’s elections. In Part 2 of this series, we’ll focus on the presumptive Republican nominee: Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney.</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/tags/epa">EPA</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/tags/republican">republican</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1004">economy</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1270">Newt Gingrich</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1286">oil</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1520">Barack Obama</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/2257">mitt romney</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/4174">jobs</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5133">fracking</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5445">election</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5857">Keystone XL</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/6360">2012</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/6654">Vote</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/7148">Misinformation</a></div></div></div>Fri, 29 Jun 2012 14:00:00 +0000Farron Cousins6385 at http://www.desmogblog.comGOP Coal Ash Bill May Be Hazardous To Your Healthhttp://www.desmogblog.com/gop-coal-ash-bill-may-be-hazardous-your-health
<div class="field field-name-field-bimage field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/styles/blog_teaser/public/blogimages/poison_sign.jpg?itok=GAFhPQqk" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>The House Energy and Commerce Committee <a href="http://www.ctpost.com/news/article/McKinley-s-coal-ash-bill-clears-2nd-House-hurdle-1466403.php">voted this week</a> to allow a new bill on the regulation of coal ash to be considered for a full House vote. The bill, known as The Coal Residuals Reuse and Management Act, would prevent the <span class="caps">E.P.A.</span> from classifying coal ash (or fly ash) as a toxic substance, and instead would allow individual states to make their own rules regarding the storage and re-use of coal ash waste. <br /><br /> The bill passed the committee by a vote of 35 – 12, with all Committee Republicans and six Democrats voting in favor of the bill. The <a href="http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/Media/file/Markups/FullCmte/071111/Memo.pdf"><span class="caps">E.P.A.</span> ruled in 2000</a> that coal ash was not a hazardous substance, but proposed a rule last summer that would change the classification to “hazardous.” The agency is still debating which rule will stand, and announced recently that the decision <a href="http://wvgazette.com/News/201103040756">will not be made this year</a>. <br /><br /> The bill was put forward by freshman Republican David McKinley from West Virginia. West Virginia is one of the country’s leading producers of both coal and coal waste. Under the guise of “saving jobs,” McKinley introduced the bill earlier this year. But a look beyond the surface reveals McKinley’s true intentions for putting forth the legislation. <br /><br />During the course of his short career, McKinley has <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cycle=Career&amp;type=I&amp;cid=N00031681&amp;newMem=N">already received more than $205,000</a> from the mining industry, which includes donations from some of the largest coal companies in West Virginia – Alpha Natural Resources (a <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/massey-energy-not-only-mountaintop-removal-mining-villain">leading company in mountaintop removal mining</a>,) International Coal Group, and Patriot Coal. The following chart is from <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=Career&amp;cid=N00031681&amp;type=I">OpenSecrets</a>, showing McKinley’s top donors: <!--break--><br /><a href="http://s1200.photobucket.com/albums/bb321/fcousins1/?action=view&amp;current=McKinleyMoney.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i1200.photobucket.com/albums/bb321/fcousins1/McKinleyMoney.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket" /></a> <br /><br /> McKinley promotes his bill as a “jobs saver” in order to sell it to the public. Indeed, the <span class="caps">GOP</span>-controlled Energy and Commerce Committee’s website <a href="http://energycommerce.house.gov/News/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=8807">ran the following headline</a> after the committee vote: “Committee Approves Job-Saving Coal Ash Legislation.” Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R – <span class="caps">MI</span>) <a href="http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/Media/file/Markups/Environment/062111/Upton.pdf">said the following about McKinley</a>: “I want to recognize the author of this legislation, Mr. McKinley. He came to Congress as a champion for his constituents and the industry that employs so many of them, and I commend him for his leadership in finding a common-sense solution that protects jobs, our environment, and energy affordability.” <br /><br /> With millions of Americans currently out of work, the “job saving” talking point is very effective. And while the Republicans have yet to offer any proof of how the “hazardous” designation would kill jobs, the notion that the bill is a “job saver” has resonated with people working for the coal industry. <br /><br /> However, the attention being placed on jobs is taking the attention away from the health impacts of coal ash waste. Coal ash is <a href="http://www.ctpost.com/news/article/McKinley-s-coal-ash-bill-clears-2nd-House-hurdle-1466403.php">known to contain</a> harmful compounds such as arsenic, selenium, lead, cadmium, and mercury. Additionally, studies have shown that coal ash waste is <a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste">more radioactive than nuclear waste</a>, and has been linked to <a href="http://earthjustice.org/news/press/2007/coal-ash-pollution-contaminates-groundwater-increases-cancer-risks">increases in cancer rates</a> in areas where coal ash waste is stored. Even if the new bill put forward by McKinley were able to save jobs somehow the question for the residents of towns that have coal ash storage facilities remains – Is it worth the risk to public health and water quality?</p></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/662">coal</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/4406">coal ash</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5391">campaign contributions</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5665">Fred Upton</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/6079">Money</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/6192">Toxic</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/6194">Fly Ash</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/6280">Waste</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/6427">David McKinley</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/6654">Vote</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/6879">Radioactive</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/6880">Energy and Commerce</a></div></div></div>Fri, 15 Jul 2011 17:21:45 +0000Farron Cousins5540 at http://www.desmogblog.comReport: Broad Bipartisan Support For Action On Climate Changehttp://www.desmogblog.com/report-broad-bipartisan-support-action-climate-change
<div class="field field-name-field-bimage field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/styles/blog_teaser/public/blogimages/climatechange.jpg?itok=4DXiPt8t" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p><a href="http://www.climatechangecommunication.org/images/files/ClimateBeliefsMay2011.pdf">A new report</a> by George Mason University’s Center for Climate Change Communication shows that voters in America are concerned about global climate change, and would support broad action by the federal government to prevent future disaster. The report shows that voters from both major political parties are at odds with most Republicans in Washington, who <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/gop-house-energy-action-team-dirty-energy-dream-team">have made it clear</a> that they are not concerned with climate change and their voting records reflect that lack of concern. <br /><br /> The focus that most Congressional Republicans have had involving climate change revolves around <span class="caps">U.S.</span> energy policy. They believe that the only solution to America’s energy crisis and high gas prices is to <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/koch-money-fuels-afp-misinformation-campaign-gas-prices">drill in every available square inch</a> of American soil or American waters. And while the report shows that 66% of Americans are in favor of more domestic oil drilling, it is likely because they are unaware that any new oil produced in the United States would have <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/06/more-us-oil-drilling-wont-help-gas-prices_n_858473.html">no impact on energy prices</a>. <br /><!--break--><br /> Here are some of the key findings from <a href="http://www.climatechangecommunication.org/images/files/ClimateBeliefsMay2011.pdf">George Mason University’s report</a>:</p>
<blockquote>71 percent of Americans say global warming should be a very high (13%), high (27%), or medium (31%) priority for the president and Congress, including 50 percent of Republicans, 66 percent of Independents and 88 percent of Democrats. <br /><br /> 91 percent of Americans say developing sources of clean energy should be a very high (32%), high (35%), or medium (24%) priority for the president and Congress, including 85 percent of Republicans, 89 percent of Independents, and 97 percent of Democrats. <br /><br /> Majorities of Americans want more action to address global warming from corporations (65%), citizens themselves (63%), the <span class="caps">U.S.</span> Congress (57%), President Obama (54%), as well as their own state and local officials. <br /><br /> Despite ongoing concerns about the economy, 67 percent of Americans say the <span class="caps">U.S.</span> should undertake a large (29%) or medium-scale effort (38%) to reduce global warming, even if it has large or moderate economic costs. <br /><br /> 82 percent of Americans (including 76% of Republicans, 74% of Independents, and 94% of Democrats) say that protecting the environment either improves economic growth and provides new jobs (56%), or has no effect (26%). Only 18 percent say environmental protection reduces economic growth and costs jobs. <br /><br /> Large majorities (including Republicans, Independents, and Democrats) say it is important for their own community to take steps to protect the following from global warming: public health (81%), thewater supply (80%), agriculture (79%), wildlife (77%), and forests (76%). <br /><br /> 84 percent of Americans support funding more research into renewable energy sources, including 81 percent of Republicans, 81 percent of Independents, and 90 percent of Democrats. <br /><br /> 68 percent of Americans support requiring electric utilities to produce at least 20% of their electricity from renewable energy sources, even if it costs the average household an extra $100 a year, including 58 percent of Republicans, 64 percent of Independents, and 82 percent of Democrats.</blockquote>
<p><a href="http://www.enviroknow.com/2011/06/15/yale-poll-finds-strong-bipartisan-support-for-clean-energy/">Josh Nelson at EnviroKnow</a> created some charts to help illustrate the findings:</p>
<p><img src="http://www.enviroknow.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/yale1.png" border="0" width="522" height="412" /></p>
<p><img src="http://www.enviroknow.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/yale2.png" border="0" width="522" height="412" /></p>
<p><img src="http://www.enviroknow.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/yale3.png" border="0" width="522" height="412" /></p>
<p>Again, as these numbers from May 2011 show, both Republicans and Democrats support efforts to reduce climate change, and yet the Republican majority in Congress is doing everything in their power to prevent any climate action. This year alone, Republicans <a href="http://www.democraticleader.gov/blog/?p=3958">have voted 7 times</a> to continue giving billions of dollars worth of subsidies to oil companies every year. They <a href="http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/print/article/2010/09/us-republicans-propose-inexplicable-cuts-to-renewable-energy">cut almost $900 million</a> from the federal budget for research into renewable energy. They stripped <a href="http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;source=web&amp;cd=6&amp;ved=0CDsQFjAF&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.law360.com%2Ftopnews%2Farticles%2F250673%2Fsenate-blocks-move-to-end-6b-in-ethanol-subsidies&amp;ei=dbn4Ta7fB4iUtwej3emnCg&amp;usg=AFQjCNG61zQJZl0NVxykAB4PIiNuVzABfg&amp;sig2=b-p0_j2RMX1lDa3Y2PFeNg">$6 billion worth of ethanol subsidies</a>. And filibustered a bill amendment put forth by Democratic Senator Max Baucus (<span class="caps">MT</span>) that <a href="http://cleantechnica.com/2010/12/04/republicans-kill-section-1603-renewable-energy-cash-grants/">would have provided the following</a>:</p>
<blockquote>Tax credits for heavy hybrid and natural gas vehicles and a 30% investment tax credit for alternative fuel refueling stations. <br /><br /> A $1-per-gallon production tax credit for biodiesel and biomass diesel and the small agri-biodiesel producer credit of 10 cents per gallon extended through 2011. <br /><br /> A 50-cent-per-gallon tax credit for biomass and other alternative fuels. <br /><br /> Tax credits for energy-efficient appliances and homes. <br /><br /> Adding $2.5 billion in funding for Section 48C the advanced energy manufacturing 30% tax credit for companies manufacturing advanced clean energy products and materials. <br /><br /> Reinstate the Research and Development tax credit for renewable energy.</blockquote>
<p><br /><br /> The actions being taken by Congress are clearly not in line with the desires of the American public. However, with the economy still performing poorly, these issues will likely take a backseat to economic issues in the next general election.</p></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/tags/republican">republican</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/722">renewable energy</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/939">climate change</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1004">economy</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1272">Democrat</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1286">oil</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/4833">George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5044">george mason university</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5648">Report</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/6499">Drilling</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/6651">Poll</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/6653">Action</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/6654">Vote</a></div></div></div>Wed, 15 Jun 2011 18:52:11 +0000Farron Cousins5432 at http://www.desmogblog.com